THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN

RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IN PUBLIC

BUILDINGS
The topic of tolerance towards religious symbols has caused much controversy among many both in
the Western and Eastern hemispheres. Religious symbols are incorporated into every religion and
are expressions of both faith and devotion. Examples of religious symbols include the Christian,
particularly Catholic, Crucifix, the Muslim Hijab and the Sikh Kirpan. For many people, particularly
from the West, the Hijab or Muslim head covering symbolises the repressive and extremely
regressive character of Islam. However, for its supporters, it represents the defence of women's
modesty against the assault of modern society. In this way, religious symbols and their meanings
and consequences differ depending on cultural perception. Recent controversy has arisen around
France's plan to ban the Hijab, along with other visible religious symbols, in schools. France's secular
constitution provides the grounds for excluding religion from their schools. However it is not just
western countries who have taken this approach. Turkey has for many years suppressed the Hijab in
schools, public buildings and among employees of the state. In the aftermath of 9/11, many
minority Muslim communities in western countries view attacks on the Hijab as part of a wider
attack on Islam conducted in tandem with the 'War on Terror'. In a similar way, there is anxiety as
to the freedom to bring Sikh Kirpans' to school because they are ceremonial daggers. It should be
noted that the Sikh religion requires the Kirpan to carried with the Sikh at all times. In this way, the
practice of the religion is seen to be restricted and can, therefore, be possibly considered as
discrimination. However, there are other forms of religious symbolism that are not necessarily a
requirement of the religion and are merely an expression of faith. There was recent controversy
over a British woman who lost her job simply because she continued wearing a Crucifix after she
was told not to by her employers. All of these points present an interesting question. Should
authorities be more lenient on religious symbols that are a requirement of the person? Also, should
there be a limit to physical or material expressions of faith?

FOR

Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women.

POINT
Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As
an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the
oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is
compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and
equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic
society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much
like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for
men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should
fight all forms of discrimination.
1'
Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on
23rd July 2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT
Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim
women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force
any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why
should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal
judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing.
No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in
Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory. 1

1'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd
July 2011

improve this

Religious symbols cause problems in schools.

POINT
As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within
school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the
classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the
school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves
may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in
technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have
been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities
in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those
who are not Christian.1
1
'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011, accessed on 24th July
2011

improve this
COUNTERPOINT
Intolerant schools cause more problems for not allowing freedom of religious expression. In a
multicultural society, students should be aware of the different religious practices and cultural
traditions of their classmates, and be taught to understand and respect these. Without such respect,
religious groups with distinctive symbols, such as Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Christians, will be driven
out of mainstream education and forced to educate their children separately.1 As for the worry
about safety issues, particularly concerning hair length, most classroom accidents occur when loose,
long hair gets caught in machinery or in a flame which would not be a problem when hair is held in
place under a headscarf.

1 'Religious Rights and Wrongs', The Economist, 4th September 2008, accessed 24th July 2011

improve this

Religious symbols cause division within Western society.

POINT
Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some
women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads.
Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and
religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims
themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of
Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds
of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on
other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate
interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full
covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate
interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations.
1
Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July
2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT
Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people
are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the
same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme
reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could
be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to
close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want
them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the
integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived
attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to
the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations.

1
'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011,
accessed on 24th July 2011

improve this

A ban would be simple to enforce.

POINT
A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be
shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them.
There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example
in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In
France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious
apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the
teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with.

1
BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004, accessed 28/8/11

improve this

COUNTERPOINT
Deciding what people can and cant wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement
may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their
Muslim pupils and staff.

improve this
 Western societies are secularly focused

POINT
Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by
the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state
authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression
of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the
state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as
members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true
for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce
that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western
society.

1
'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts',
11th June 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT
Even though the wearing of religious symbols could be a part of that specific religions' culture and
practice, it must be remembered that Western society and culture brands itself as secular and,
therefore, should take precedence over clashes with minority cultural practices. In Britain there has
been controversy over movements to include Sharia Law in the British legal system, which ties in
with this same argument of culture clashes concerning religious methods.1 Essentially, the question
arises as to how far is tolerance for different cultural practices detrimental for the maintenance of a
secular British culture and state.

1
Abul Taher, 'Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts', The Sunday Times, 14th September 2008,
accessed on 23rd July 2011

improve this

AGAINST

Banning religious symbols is just a way of unfairly targeting people.

POINT
Banning religious symbols could be viewed as just a way of targeting a group of people. In a
nutshell, religious symbols would be used as a scapegoat in order to both highlight and blame for
problems that are much bigger. Removing the hijab, the Crucifix or the Jewish skullcap would take
away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and, therefore, banning them would cause more
problems.1 It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism and
more criticism, ultimately making the country a worse place to live.

1
at 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd
July 2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT
A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the
problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the
day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to
the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil,
would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies
nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or "chavs." This scares
people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their
safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns.

1
'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010, accessed 24th July
2011

improve this

Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to

others.

POINT
At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have
considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and
individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for
causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined
within their own home.1

1
'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd
July 2011

improve this
COUNTERPOINT

Some argue that religious symbols, particularly those that are clearly seen, are not just for
personal benefit. They affect the safety of the society around them. For example, there have been
worries about how the Muslim full-veil may be used as a disguise for terrorists and how veils
make it harder to ascertain someone's identity. Therefore, some symbols at least involve others,
maybe even unintentionally, through the uneasiness and suspicion they cause.
1
'The Islamic Veil Across Europe', BBC News, 15th June 2010, accessed on 25th July 2011

improve this

If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things.

POINT

Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not
viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the
Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the
day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we
have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would
have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the
banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to
people in public places.1However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very
similar to other religions' symbols.
1
'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th
July 2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

It would not be necessary to ban all religious symbols if one was banned. Banning religious
symbols that are regarded as dangerous, such as the Kirpan, would be very different from
banning crucifixes as the justification would be different.1 And if people start asking for other
things to be banned, their cases should be listened to. Some of them may have a point for
banning them. However if a symbol poses a risk then it should be banned in order to prevent that
risk.
1
'Kirpan incident raises questions about court ruling', The Montreal Gazette, 16th September
2008, accessed on 25th July 2011

It is their culture and religion.

POINT

Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their
members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims
should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so.
Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no
doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be
wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious
symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an
intrusion into their individuality.1
1
Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007, accessed on 24th July
2011

improve this

COUNTERPOINT

That the state is secular does not diminish the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN
charter, that all states have signed up to, and considered by many to be a basic human
right.1 Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn't a
religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom?
Surely equality in society is most accurately presented through allowing each individual,
including their religious beliefs and modes of expression, to practice their religious traditions
without hindrance.

1
'Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On
Religion Or Belief', 1981 Resolution of the UN Charter, accessed on 23rd July 2011

improve this